Posted: 9/5/2009 4:16:28 AM EDT
|
I'm a little sleepy this morningn and need help countering someone who replied to a post I put up on my FaceBook page last night...
I posted: "My Friends, I was willing to give President Obama a chance when he was elected...but after seeing his actions since taking office, I now believe he and his administration are doing everything they can to transform the U.S. into a Socialist state..." My "friend" replied: "Socialism is simply a way of distributing goods and services not a political system. Perhaps what you ment to say was transform the U.S. into a Stalinist state? And if that be the case "Stalinism is a state in which the exploitation is controlled by the ruling class... at the expense of the working class" the exact opposit of what Marx and Engels were trying to accomplish, and is precisely what Reagan and "W" tried to do, not so much George Sr." Help me squash this idiot... |
|
I gave up arguing with the ignorant.............some folks just need to find out the hard way.
I've noticed that many of my former 'buddies' are still 'stuck-on-stupid' and need a lot more help than Im willing to give. Quite a few on Facebook are leaning way left. I just make my stance clear on my 'Wall' and it tends to scare the socialists away.........it saves me from having to argue. |
|
Quoted:
His argument makes no sense. Is he arguing that use of the government to redistribute wealth is not political? He's arguing that what ARFCOM types are accusing him of is Stalinist tactics, rather than socialism, and are directly antithetical to pure marxism |
|
seems like your buddy tried to turn the argument to one about terms or names
sounds like he took or is taking a college course to me Heres the deal from my perspective Its all about smaller government and more individual freedom versus big government and less individual freedom My life experience is that government programs are inefficient, expensive and slow Big government (like Kalifornistan) try to legislate morality and wind up with too many rules, lost freedoms, and high taxes This country and its freedoms are founded on and the result Christian principles that include truth, respect for others, God, family, forgiveness, etc. Socialism, Stalinism, Communism are all Godless humanistic forms of government |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
His argument makes no sense. Is he arguing that use of the government to redistribute wealth is not political? He's arguing that what ARFCOM types are accusing him of is Stalinist tactics, rather than socialism, and are directly antithetical to pure marxism True enough. But these sites don't seem to agree that socialism is not political, and merely a means of distribution. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism bluezerosix- You can't allow them to create new definitions. His argument works so long as you accept his definition, which is not accurate. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
His argument makes no sense. Is he arguing that use of the government to redistribute wealth is not political? He's arguing that what ARFCOM types are accusing him of is Stalinist tactics, rather than socialism, and are directly antithetical to pure marxism True enough. But these sites don't seem to agree that socialism is not political, and merely a means of distribution. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism OP- You can't allow them to create new definitions. His argument works so long as you accept his definition, which is not accurate. He might be referring to the accusation that Obama wants a socialist state. A 100% socialist state would be a post-money society, much like late stage communism. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
His argument makes no sense. Is he arguing that use of the government to redistribute wealth is not political? He's arguing that what ARFCOM types are accusing him of is Stalinist tactics, rather than socialism, and are directly antithetical to pure marxism True enough. But these sites don't seem to agree that socialism is not political, and merely a means of distribution. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism OP- You can't allow them to create new definitions. His argument works so long as you accept his definition, which is not accurate. He might be referring to the accusation that Obama wants a socialist state. A 100% socialist state would be a post-money society, much like late stage communism. Maybe. I don't know 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If he's an idiot and you're having trouble with a comeback, what does that say about you? O.K., I'll take my lumps this morning...
But let's see how foggy your head is after you've had a 12-pack of Paulaner Hefe-Weizen and half a bottle of Jameson the night before...  
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If he's an idiot and you're having trouble with a comeback, what does that say about you? O.K., I'll take my lumps this morning...
But let's see how foggy your head is after you've had a 12-pack of Paulaner Hefe-Weizen and half a bottle of Jameson the night before...
Ironically tell your friend that you have become a Maoist-Third-Worldist. It's a pretty bizarre form of communism that is so far to the left that it is similar to the far right. They think homosexuals should be killed, they think interracial marriage and abortion are wrong, etc etc |
| Arguments in the form of knowable history are there for the observation of anyone who cares to read them. 70,000,000 non-combatant civilians have been killed by their own Socialist and collectivist governments during the 20th century. If this "friend" has been hereto unwilling to respect the lessons of plain history before he ever "met" you, then your arguments will not convince him that he is wrong. We cannot all be friends. |
|
Quoted:
Arguments in the form of knowable history are there for the observation of anyone who cares to read them. 70,000,000 non-combatant civilians have been killed by their own Socialist and collectivist governments during the 20th century. If this "friend" has been hereto unwilling to respect the lessons of plain history before he ever "met" you, then your arguments will not convince him that he is wrong. We cannot all be friends. Those deaths were from communism, specifically the violent revolution part that sets socialism apart from communism. |